Global Consciousness Project

[Zep]

But will it be random??

Well, it will probably be all over the place. Does that count?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, it will probably be all over the place. Does that count?

Only if it sounds scientific. Doesn't necessarily have to be, though...

 

[Zep]

Sounds scientific to who...?

 

[Pragmatist]

Greate work, Prag! I think you summed it all very nicely.

Now...

Stand by for an influx of mountains of straw from jzs...

Apparently not... Maybe because I used the awful words, "address the issues" - which seems to have the same effect on Justin as garlic on vampires...!

Here's something interesting though. I took a brief look at some geophysical databases to see if there was anything interesting there in relation to the GCP data. I've only looked at one data set to start with, I chose the GCP data for the Tsunami of December 26 2004 and just compared one of the graphs with things like proton flux, solar winds, x-ray background etc. The most interesting comparison was between the GCP and the geomagnetic k index (which is calculated every 3 hours from a range of geomagnetic measurements around the world).

The GCP chart I used was the one for the 8 days (one day before to 7 days after the tsunami) - I can't link to it directly because GCP apparently doesn't allow external navigation to individual pages.

The geomagnetic data I used was from here: http://crlhir.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2004,12,26

I took the GCP chart, removed part of the background and scaled it to the same scale as the geomagnetic data and laid them side by side. The result is below. Although it's only a rough visual comparison, it sure looks like there is some correlation to me. Unfortunately, without raw data from a single egg and the local momentary geomagnetic data for that same egg it seems to be impossible to actually run the numbers meaningfully. But if anyone is interested, it looks like it may be an interesting avenue to investigate.

 

[Pragmatist]

Hmm, here's another one, the 7 day data for September 11 2001 compared with the geomagnetic K index values for the same period. Another interesting correspondence.

Here is the K index data: http://crlhir.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2001,9,11

 

[T'ai Chi]

For what it's worth, if I was expected to analyse such data I wouldn't just be running simple stats on it. I'd be running Fourier analyses on it to see if there were persistent periodic patterns, and autocorrelations across various windows as well as crosscorrelations with redundant generators (with different degrees of shielding) during the same time period - and in particular I'd be looking for aliasing across different windows. And I'd be doing similar analyses of the power line state and other measurable variables like the background radiation flux etc. And of course the DIEHARD as well (I don't know whether the DIEHARD tests include any of these analyses).

Glad to hear it. Since you are taking the skeptical approach, you are expected to actually analyze the data. Will you tell us when you have your analysis done?

Or was this just you being hypothetical, as if such words mean anything?

GCP mention that Fourier analyses can be done - but they don't say that they are done routinely.

But such analyses have been done (hint: do a search on their site for "Fourier").

And where are the external influence measurements? Have they bothered to try correlating with solar activity for example?

Again, if you had "bothered" to use the Search function (hint: look for "Geomagnetic"), you would have answered your own question.

I note in their FAQ they simply claim their equipment is "shielded" and external factors don't count - yeah, right!

I looked at their FAQ, and what they actually say is

"What about disturbance in the power grid, or extraordinary levels of cell phone usage, or other EM fields? Might these be an explanation for the deviations in a case like September 11 2001?

Such influences would have a geographical concentration. In this example, they would center on New York and Washington, of course, but the eggs are distributed around the world. Their average distance from New York is more than 4000 miles (~6400 Km). More important, the design of the research-grade instruments we use includes both physical shielding and a logic stage that excludes first-order biasing from electromagnetic or other physical causes. Thus we are forced to look elsewhere for the source of the induced structure. "

You don't believe they are shielded, OK.

You also left out the "logic stage" part for some reason. Why?

Some would consider it a sad indictment of society that a "statistical industry" could even exist!

Those who are ignorant of its role in the advancement of the sciences, yes.

 

[Pragmatist]

Glad to hear it. Since you are taking the skeptical approach, you are expected to actually analyze the data. Will you tell us when you have your analysis done?

Or was this just you being hypothetical, as if such words mean anything?

Glad to see you had a new haystack delivered, I was worried you'd be running low on straw by now...

No Justin, I am not "expected" to analyse the data. I am not the one running the alleged experiment, if it were my experiment I would be "expected" to analyse the data. Of course if you want to disagree, then fine - in which case where is your analysis? I mean, surely I'm not the only one "expected" to analyse the data?

And you know full well it is impossible for anyone to analyse the data in the context in which I mentioned it. Which was continuous analysis of the raw egg output alongside contiguous local control measurements of ambiental variables. Since the data I would like to see doesn't exist, there is nothing to analyse - which was my point.

You must be getting really desperate if that's the best argument you can come up with!

But such analyses have been done (hint: do a search on their site for "Fourier").

Routinely? On the raw output per egg? That was what I said. I can't find that a via a search of their site, perhaps you could tell me the sequence of links I need to click on to find out where it says that they continuously and routinely Fourier analyse the raw output data?

Again, if you had "bothered" to use the Search function (hint: look for "Geomagnetic"), you would have answered your own question.

Yes, I found that after I posted. One cursory analysis of a single date... Which shows correlations which they judge to be "not significant".

By the way, I assume that you actually looked at the "todo" list?

We are interested in exploratory assessments of other parameters as possible indicators. We also expect to explore correlations with environmental variables including automatically registered global-scale measures such as sidereal time, geomagnetic field fluctuations, and seismographic activity.

So they hope to do such analyses in the future...

How long exactly has this project been running? Several years, no? And they hope one day to actually check whether there is any environmental influence...

I wonder how long before they actually think of installing some ambiental environment monitors in the vicinity of the actual eggs?

But of course they don't really need to check such trivia, do they? Because they already know that it's all due to "global consciousness", don't they?

We use devices called random event generators (REG) that usually produce a continuous sequence of completely unpredictable numbers which can be recorded in computer files. Experiments have shown that human consciousness can make the string of numbers slightly non-random when people hold intentions to do so, or when there is a special state of coherent group consciousness. The difference is very small, but statistical analysis demonstrates that this correlation of the REG behavior with something about consciousness is real. It is as if our wishes could change the 50/50 odds of a coin flip ever so slightly.

It turns out that this small effect of consciousness on the electronic REG isn't diminished by distance or shielding, so it apparently isn't brought about by something physical like temperature changes, or sound waves, or electromagnetic radiation. Instead it seems that information is the important thing. The data that we collect is changed from an expected random condition to a a slightly structured condition, detectable by statistical tests. Such structure implies that the numbers are not completely unpredictable, and that we can expect to see trends or patterns that should not appear in truly random data.

I mean, why ruin a perfectly good theory with pesky facts...?

I looked at their FAQ, and what they actually say is

"What about disturbance in the power grid, or extraordinary levels of cell phone usage, or other EM fields? Might these be an explanation for the deviations in a case like September 11 2001?

Such influences would have a geographical concentration. In this example, they would center on New York and Washington, of course, but the eggs are distributed around the world. Their average distance from New York is more than 4000 miles (~6400 Km). More important, the design of the research-grade instruments we use includes both physical shielding and a logic stage that excludes first-order biasing from electromagnetic or other physical causes. Thus we are forced to look elsewhere for the source of the induced structure. "

I guess solar flares would have a geographical concentration? Large scale interactions of solar winds with the magnetosphere?

You don't believe they are shielded, OK.

I didnt say that, and you know it. I don't believe they are adequately shielded, no. They only claim that they are shielded against "EM". O.K. what EM? High energy gamma? Cosmic rays? Thermal?

From: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/jseNelson.pdf

Moreover, the design of the research-grade instruments includes both physical shielding (minimal in the Orion devices)

Now, let's see you argue that "minimal" is "adequate"...

You also left out the "logic stage" part for some reason. Why?

Because in my opinion, that's just too silly for words! And I'm not the only one who thinks so, since I agree with another commentator's assessment on it, I'll quote what he has to say. Here is the opinion of Dr Jeffrey D. Scargle, Nasa Space Science division:

From: Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 571-577, 2002

Throwing Out the Baby With the Bath Water?
GCP data processing includes the application of a logical XOR operator to the bit stream. The process actually involves an XOR between two physical random digit streams, followed by a deterministic flipping of every second bit (Roger Nelson, personal communication). The purpose of this operation is to filter out ‘‘... trends attributable to spurious physical sources’’ (RDN) and ‘‘to ensure that the mean output is unbiased regardless of environmental conditions, component interaction, or aging’’ (DR).
However, the bit flipping operation also renders the GCP completely insensitive to a whole class of possible effects. For example, suppose there were a mental signal—perhaps transcending ordinary human senses and known laws of physics—generated by, and acting coherently in, groups of humans. Suppose further that this signal acts to change the relative frequency of 0s and 1s in RNG's by a statistically significant amount. Isn't this what global consciousness is all about? No, according to GCP! The GCP system is insensitive to such a signal because the bit flipping operation would null it out (along with possible interference). The GCP is seeking evidence of effects that operate directly on the ‘‘final answer.’’ Different Readers will no doubt have different assessments on this matter.
Perhaps expressing my personal astonishment at all this, I characterize what GCP is seeking as hyper-transcendental—i.e., the system is purposefully sensitive to only effects that transcend both direct sensory detection and elementary causality as described above. The GCP explicitly excludes direct coherent effects which, if discovered, would revolutionize science in a heartbeat. Their position seems to be that such ‘‘physicalist’’ causal effects are not being pursued because they have already been ruled out (RDN, personal communiÂ_cation).

and, later in the same paper, under recommendations:

"Do not carry out the XOR operation, work to improve shielding of spurious interference, or - if systematic errors are really suspected - record the data both with and without XOR"

In effect, the hypothesis of GCP has to assume that either "global consciousness" knows in advance how it will be processed and adjusts itself accordingly to bypass the later corrections (like the XOR) or it directly affects logic level outputs of computers. The first is just ridiculous, and the second would mean we could just measure "global consciousness" with simple logic circuits and look for a logical anomaly. Which would be vastly easier and clearer than the current setup - and it would give fairly unequivocal results. It appears that the GCP personnel are advocating the former idea...

Either way, I would record the raw output prior to the XOR, (and they could record the XOR too if they wanted). But they don't - which is the whole point.

If someone suspects a potential systematic error in something, then surely the only logical course of action is to record the raw data which actually shows whether such an error exists or not? Don't you think? Do GCP do that? No. They just assume that it will be taken care of by the XOR.

Those who are ignorant of its role in the advancement of the sciences, yes.

Or maybe those who are well aware how it can be abused.

 

[Pragmatist]

Hey Justin, you may find this link useful if you run low of supplies...

http://www.centormall.com/Central_Oregon_Ranch_Supply/

 

[T'ai Chi]

Hey Justin, you may find this link useful if you run low of supplies...

http://www.centormall.com/Central_Oregon_Ranch_Supply/

I am already convinced you are from the 'Horselaugh' school. No further demonstration is needed on your part.

(p.s. I don't live in Oregon)

 

[T'ai Chi]

, I am not "expected" to analyse the data. I am not the one running the alleged experiment, if it were my experiment I would be "expected" to analyse the data

If you are making comments on the data analysis, I'd have expected you to analyze the data to have a basis from which to make comments.

And you know full well ...

I didnt say that, and you know it. ...

Please don't attempt to dictate to me what I know.

Yes, I found that after I posted. One cursory analysis of a single date...

Glad you found that. Yes one analysis, on that page. It links to another. And if you search more, you will find another. You also didn't specify how many of these would satisfy you, so you can keep moving those goalposts.

Which shows correlations which they judge to be "not significant".

Yes. Think about what "not significant" means in this case.

So they hope to do such analyses in the future...

Yes, they are guilty of improving their research. They already have done some stuff on sidereal time and on geomagnetic field fluctuations, and it looks like they want to do more.

How long exactly has this project been running? Several years, no?

They have information about project duration on their page.

Because they already know that it's all due to "global consciousness", don't they?

Feel free to post where they specifically say this. Or are you telling us what they know too?

Scargle stuff snipped

Yes, the GCP folk have Scargle's comments upon their page and they are open to his criticisms, as well as the criticisms of May and Spottiswoode.

In effect, the hypothesis of GCP has to assume that either "global consciousness" knows in advance how it will be processed and

Here we go again. The assuming what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does, for the purpose of debunking attempts. Don't look at the data; just make assumptions.

They just assume that it will be taken care of by the XOR.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD tests. That leaves your criticism rather vacuous.

 

[Pragmatist]

If you are making comments on the data, I'd have expected you to analyze the data to have a basis from which to make comments.

So if I say that the data I want to see doesn't exist, you expect that I should analyse the data that doesn't exist before making that comment? Way to go Justin! I hope your foot isn't getting too sore...!

Don't dictate to me what I know.

You are absolutely right, I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, sorry. I guess you don't know what I actually said. Just because I wrote it explicitly on here, I shouldn't make silly assumptions that you would be able to read it and understand.

Feel free to post where they specifically say this. Or are you telling us what they know too?

I did. Unfortunately I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, as I said...

Yes, the GCP folk have Scargle's comments upon their page and agree with some of his criticism.

And?

Here we go again. The assuming what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does, for the purpose of debunking attempts. Don't look at the data; just make assumptions.

So tell me, why is it acceptable for them to assume what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does? Why is acceptable for them to prejudge the conclusion and declare the hypothetical thing as a fact? And again, unfortunately due to your comprehension problem you obviously didn't understand what I said. I said I would like to see raw data that is collected without assumptions as to some hypothetical thing.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD tests. That leaves your criticism rather empty.

No. Not the Orion has passed the DIEHARD tests (generically). An Orion, or some Orions are alleged to have passed the DIEHARD tests sometime in the past. Which is totally irrelevant to anything I said. Which you would know if you didn't have a reading comprehension problem...

 

[Pragmatist]

I am already convinced you are from the 'Horselaugh' school. No further demonstration is needed on your part.

(p.s. I don't live in Oregon)

Oh, not in Oregon huh? Too bad. Well, looks like you're not having any problem finding straw wherever you are...

 

[T'ai Chi]

, I forgot about your reading comprehension problem,

I shouldn't make silly assumptions that you would be able to read it and understand.

Unfortunately I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, as I said...

unfortunately due to your comprehension problem you obviously didn't understand what I said

if you didn't have a reading comprehension problem...

When you find some substance, find me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

see above

 

[Hawk one]

When you find some substance, find me. [/B]

OK, how about this thread?. I'll be so kind as to show you the more glaring example of what is either you a) having reading comprehension problems or b) lying.

Originally posted by jzs
AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts. As you well know. Does it ever occur to you that anyone can simply read the thread above and see exactly what I said? Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?



Who do you think you are fooling liar? Anyone can see whether I dodged the question or not. Perhaps I "dodged it" like this in my last post:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts.

...or maybe I "dodged it" like this in my post before that one:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

...which, incidentally, you even quoted in your last reply...yeah, I really "dodged" that question didn't I?

And if we look at this post, found earlier in this thread, we see another example where you are shown to misrepresent another poster either by intent or by lack of competence.

You want more, or will this do for now?

 

[T'ai Chi]

OK, how about this thread?. I'll be so kind as to show you the more glaring example of what is either you a) having reading comprehension problems or b) lying.

Great example. Each instance I ask you know who for evidence he just says 'I already gave it' or things to that affect, even when he hadn't.

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts.

So I'm wondering then, what does asking "your" astrologer have to do with it? Or talking about "astrologers" in general. Odd wording if he was just talking about those specific 7.

Not to mention Claus considers 6 out of 7 not agreement? That seems like fairly strong agreement to me. If he had 100 charts and 99 showed agreement, he wouldn't count that as agreement. What he is really looking at is perfect agreement. He should at least be upfront and say that.

And if we look at this post, found earlier in this thread, we see another example where you are shown to misrepresent another poster either by intent or by lack of competence.

Zep didn't, doesn't, and possibly won't, analyze the data, period. He brings up what the hypothetical GC could hypothetically do. Therefore, my comments still stand in regards to him assuming the GC exists but only for the purpose of debunking and not looking at the actual data.

 

[Pragmatist]

Editing your post to add several new points 10 minutes after I replied to it. Now that really is desperate!

Glad you found that. Yes one analysis, on that page. It links to another. And if you search more, you will find another. You also didn't specify how many of these would satisfy you, so you can keep moving those goalposts.

I only found analyses for one date/event. How many different non-contiguous dates/events with such analyses did you find?

Yes. Think about what "not significant" means in this case.

It means that statistically in that particular case alone there appears to be no significant correlation between the massaged data and the K index - which is highly processed data itself. Which tells us nothing about whether there is a systematic correlation between the geomagnetic field and the raw data output of the RNG, or whether the K index correlates with a contributory effect which by itself is below the level of statistical significance.

Yes, they are guilty of improving their research. They already have done some stuff on sidereal time and on geomagnetic field fluctuations, and it looks like they want to do more.

You don't think it might have been wise to look for environmental correlations before assuming the effect was due to "global consciousness"?

They have information about project duration on their page.

So how long has it been running then? How long is a reasonable time to run before checking for external influences?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

Think about this long and hard... and take your time.

How can he possibly know my astrologer (hypothetical) uses those specific charts that he found? In the article he says to ask "your astrologer".

A reader in Africa... their astrologer is going to use some Danish charts? Or my astrologer, who doesn't even use those charts, I am supposed to ask them about disagreement based on charts they don't even use? Are you really expecting anybody to believe this?

 

[Pragmatist]

OK, how about this thread?. I'll be so kind as to show you the more glaring example of what is either you a) having reading comprehension problems or b) lying.

Please don't disturb Justin with facts, he finds them just so inconvenient.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It means that statistically in that particular case alone

Again, please tell everyone your requirement for how many cases you wish to see so you'll possibly stop moving the goalposts.

You don't think it might have been wise to look for environmental correlations before assuming the effect was due to "global consciousness"?

Again, show me specifically where they say it is due to global consciousness. You keep avoiding this. Hint: saying 'I already did!' or resorting to your embarassing 'reading comprehension' smear doesn't work.

So how long has it been running then?

Search their site and find out.